Skill-based teaching alone produced no statistically significant pre-to-post gain in reading comprehension in the control group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The control group taught with conventional skill-based reading instruction showed no significant difference between pre-test and post-test comprehension scores (p=.094). → Bogale 2018

Evidence¶

Bogale 2018¶

Bogale, Y. N. (2018). Conceptualizing Reading to Learn: Strategy Instruction and EFL Students' Reading Comprehension. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 10(2), 93–117. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1207221

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Paired t-test on the control group (n=54); Table 3 reports pre-test mean 58.61 (SD 8.710) and post-test mean 60.56 (SD 7.811). No effect size is printed, so the null is reported as a non-significant test, not as equivalence.

"the posttest means scores of the participants instructed with the skill based reading instruction did not show any significant difference from their pretest mean score at a .094 level, indicating that the skill based reading instruction did not help in enhancing students' reading comprehension in the control group."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Traditional reading comprehension instruction produced no statistically significant pre-test to post-test improvement in the control group — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The control group showed no significant pre-test to post-test difference under conventional teaching — a broader claim this one bears on
• Intensive exposure to EFL classes alone produced no statistically significant literacy gains in adult learners lacking basic literacy — related